New Delhi | May 30, 2025

The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notices in two separate appeals challenging the continuation of insolvency proceedings against edtech company Byju’s. The appeals, filed by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and Byju’s director Riju Raveendran, contest a National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) order that refused to halt the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) despite an out-of-court settlement.

A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sanjay Kumar took up the matter and sought responses from the insolvency resolution professional (IRP), the Committee of Creditors (CoC), and other parties. The court has listed the matter for hearing on July 21, 2025.

 Background of the Case

The insolvency process was initiated earlier this year after BCCI filed a claim for unpaid dues of approximately ₹158.9 crore related to a terminated sponsorship deal. Though Byju’s and BCCI later informed the tribunal of a settlement and sought to withdraw the petition, the NCLT rejected the move, citing that the CoC had already been formed. That decision was upheld by the NCLAT, prompting the current appeals.

Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), once the CoC is constituted, any withdrawal of insolvency proceedings must be approved by a 90% majority vote of the committee, as per Section 12A.

Petitioners’ Arguments

BCCI, in its plea, stated that the original claim had been amicably resolved, and the continuation of insolvency proceedings served no purpose.
Riju Raveendran, who is a significant shareholder and non-executive director of Byju’s parent company Think & Learn Pvt Ltd, argued that the NCLAT failed to consider the commercial reality of the settlement and the resulting harm to the company’s operations and reputation.

The case represents a significant test of procedural clarity under India’s insolvency regime—specifically whether a creditor can withdraw a petition post-CoC formation, even when the claim is settled.

For Byju’s, which has seen a sharp decline from its peak valuation of $22 billion amid financial distress, the outcome of this legal battle could impact ongoing restructuring efforts and its future as a going concern.

The Supreme Court will take up the matter again on July 21, when it is expected to hear interim arguments and consider whether insolvency proceedings should be stayed in the meantime.